Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Mods. The parent is not a troll. (Score 1) 192

Delivery drone need to be able to deal with undocumented realities. Having a camera or other 4pi sub-second map of the surrounding area is necessary to avoid collisions with: * other drones * birds * non-commercial air craft All of which operate in the discussed elevation range.

Comment Re:Great idea (Score 1) 220

I know you are using, the now meaningless, quotes around "deadly force" but do tone down the hyperbole. While it seems to be an ill-conceived idea to empower corporations to retaliate against perceived attackers it is not "deadly" in any sense (unless of course it is some other stupid corp who placed life critical equipment on the internet).

Comment Re:Smart (Score 2) 291

You are giving a single data point. Perhaps you should provide a data point further in the past to at least give a slope to your assertion? Here let me help. The effective tax rate on the top 1% has been falling since 1995 while for everyone else it is at a historic low. However it is important to keep in mind that the percent of wealth owned by that 1% has increased dramatically: the ratio of 50th to 99th wealth has gone from 0.024 in 1995 to 0.01 in 2013. In particular the 50% wealth level has DROPPED while the 99% wealth level has almost doubled.

Comment Re:Even U238 isn't radioactive. (Score 1) 242

I think you misread something. Pu239 synthesis doesn't include beta capture. U239 is unstable and EMITTS a beta similarly for Np239. Beta (electron) capture would lead to a lower atomic number:
P+e^- = N+\nu_e
There used to be a cool webpage where you could traverse all the isotopes and see how they were produced but I can't seem to find it now.

Comment Re:Harbingers? or just early adopters? (Score 1) 300

This is easily testable with whatever dataset they used to do the research. * Come up with a hypothesis based on a subset of your data * Test your hypothesis on the remaining data It seems like they had bunch of data so they could have selected data before the last N choices were made them see how their model predicts what the "Harbingers" would say or not.

Comment Re:Why can't this be the law everywhere? (Score 1) 271

I think that asking a private company (Google) to do the job of the State, keeping records private, is the wrong course of action. If your goal is to have arrest records be private then make the SOURCE of Google's search results remove them, e.g. the state database or historical news reports. It is NOT Google's job to hide these things it is the State's job to make these data private. Now if Google is HOSTING these data then they can be held responsible to remove the, otherwise the State should just go after the sources.

Comment Re:the non-empirical research dollar (Score 1) 364

You do realize that one reason for the current state of affairs is the complete lack of ability to test ANY new theory? The LHC was really only designed to see what we expected to see. If we don't see some things that will be great but it will mean that the Standard Model is pretty much wrong. But we won't be able to test anything else.

It is naive to believe that everything in the world can be optimized my some market solution. If some group isn't producing results it is not always the case that reducing their funding will produce better results (e.g. education and basic science). We have trained many great theoretical physicists in the past 30 years but have invested very little in experiments that are likely to produce that could falsify any modern theory.

Comment Re:Science != Biomedical Research (Score 1) 444

I am in astrophysics so....

Regardless I think there is a very real difference between fields where you can leave your experiment on and grow significance with square root time and those that you simply cannot. It is not a matter of difficulty but a matter of biology. One cannot study many disease with the quantity of data to make a robust statistical conclusion. Biomedical research needs to accept this. However simply discounting their research because you think they aren't working hard enough isn't going to change anything.

Comment Re:Science != Biomedical Research (Score 4, Interesting) 444

I agree with your general tone and statement. However it is important to note the inherent limitations of biomedical research. Generally one CANNOT do large scale studies needed to get a statistically robust result. All of physics and astrophysics generally use the 5 sigma discover requirement which means you have to measure the effect to 3e-7. You cannot do this with people as subjects. It is hard to do this with ANY biological subject. Many of the issues brought up stem from this.

I think much of the problem is exacerbated by the public-or-perish mentality but is even more affected by the total lack of reporting null results (when you DO NOT see anything). This skews your overall distribution. It is like not accounting for trials (because you aren't). In biomedical research they need to spend more time quantifying their trials and placing their results in the proper statistical context. Just staying that you are less likely to get parkinson's disease if you drink coffee because we asked a bunch of people isn't the whole story. How many questions did you ask? Was it 100? Did you treat all those as essentially trials?

Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that the pens will multiply instead of disappear.